III 168
Maturana:nervoussystems (autopoietic) creates reality - SearleVsMaturana:
genetic fallacy: from the fact that our image is constructed, it does not follow that reality is constructed.
SearleVsMaturana: genetic fallacy: from the fact that our picture is constructed, it does not follow that reality is constructed.
Maturana: rejects the idea of an "objective reality" in favour of the idea that nervous systems like autopoietic systems create their own reality. Since we have no idea and no access to reality except through social construction, there is no independent reality.
SearleVsMaturana: from the fact that our knowledge/imagination/image of reality is constructed by human brains in social interactions, it does not follow that reality has been created by human brains.
III 169
Geneticmisconception.Problem beyond that: would the interactions themselves also be constructed by interaction? Rregress).
Winograd: Example "there is water in the fridge". Relative to different backgrounds you can make statements that are true or false. From this he concludes that reality does not exist independently of our representations.
SearleVsWinograd: genetic fallacy as in Maturana: confuses our image (background) with reality. Cf. >Background/Searle.

Derrida: "Il n'y a pas de "hors texte"".
SearleVsDerrida: this is simply claimed without argument. In a later polemical answer to me he seems to take everything back anyway. He claims that the whole thing only means banality, that everything exists in one context or another.

III 168
Reality/Maturana:nervoussystems (autopoietic) creates reality. - SearleVsMaturana: genetic fallacy: from the fact that our image is constructed, it does not follow that reality is constructed.
---
III 179
E.g.someonesays: "In reality everything is different"/Berkeley: (Berkeley claims anyway, that matter does not exist) if the matter does not exist, everything stays the same.
III 185
Truth/reality/Searle:cannotcoincide because each (true or false) representation is bound to certain aspects, but not to others. -> aspects/Searle; >conceptual scheme.
Ontology/Searle: an ontologically objective reality seems to have no point of view - PutnamVsSearle: there is no "ready made world".
---
III 194
Background/Searle:Moore'shands belong to the background. They are not in a safe deposit box - the background helps us to determine the truth conditions of our utterances. >Background/Searle, >Moore's hands.

MaturanaVsLuhmann: refuses to describe communication systems as social systems.
LuhmannVsMaturana: that is a strong emotional element on his side: he does not want to lose sight of the people. (Cass.5)

Maturana IUmberto MaturanaBiologie der Realität Frankfurt 2000

Maturana, H.

Luhmann Vs Maturana, H.

Kass. 5
Component/"component"/Maturana/LuhmannVsMaturana: strange English: covers too much and leaves open whether the operations or the structures are meant. This may be sufficient for biology, because it does not start out so strongly from events and attributes elemental character to the chemical states and state character to the elements. Even if with a short period of time.
Kass. 5
Event/System Theory/Luhmann: in the investigation of consciousness and communication the concept of event imposes itself! (Non-resolvable events). A sentence is said on a certain occasion and not again. Perception is only there in a certain moment. No "components" are necessary.
Kass. 6
Structural Coupling/Maturana/Luhmann: I will vary his term a little. Maturana's concept is not precise enough with regard to the causal relationship S/U. System/Maturana: assumes that one can make two statements about a system: 1. it has an autopoietic organization. LuhmannVsMaturana: the concept of organization is unusable for us! It should be enough to say: autopoietic reproduction with great scope. 2. specific structures, depending on the type of creature (mammals, fish, etc.).
Kass. 7
Observation/Maturana: life must function biologically.
LuhmannVsMaturana: but in biological terms it is more difficult to see which limitations constitute the selection. There are obvious possibilities for expanding complexity.
Parallel to sociology: self-fullfilling prophecies: are given into society qua communication and the society that knows how to forecast itself reacts to it.

III 168
Maturana:rejectsthe idea of an "objective reality" in favor of the idea that the nervous systems as autopoietic systems creates its own reality. Since we have no idea and no access to the reality except through the social construction, there is no independent reality.
SearleVsMaturana: from the fact that our knowledge/idea/image of the reality is constructed by human brains in social interactions, does not follow that the reality has been created by human brains.
III 169
Geneticfallacy:Problem beyond: would the interactions then themselves also be constructed by interaction? (Regress).

Kanitscheider II 21
KanitscheiderVsConstructivism/VsMaturana:movescloser to Fichte's absolute idealism, in which the ego sets the world.
1 Nature becomes fiction. As a starting point, however, at least the constructing cognitive faculty and its biological carrier must be assumed.
2. Problem: the epistemic status of illusions. Both in everyday life and in science we are able to eliminate deceptions.
Someone who invokes illusions does not live long. (Evolutionist ArgumentVsMaturana).
Something seems to prevent us from creating arbitrary worlds.
Reality/Kanitscheider: as explanation for success and failure we accept the resistance of an autonomous reality. (PutnamVs).
BiologistsVsMaturana: what do we gain if we still call the known chemical processes autopoiesis? (Luhmann Kass.5).